Gallowgate Toon

Think that's the last we'll see of him. Had one put on a plate, as well, didn't he?

Huffed and puffed and managed to nick the ball away once or twice, but still totally shown up for being a dweeb.

He cant even get the most basic thing right and that's starting the best 11 players. The options really aren't any better, tbh.

The squad is horrifically imbalanced. You could see today with Watford how much difference some pace and strength in the spine of the team makes. We are generally powderpuff.

It was good to see he tried 4-3-3 and then changed it when he realised it wasn't working, and there was some improvement, but I think he just needs to concentrate on getting this team to just grind results out. Our defence is fucking shambolic, if left alone they just get ragged all over the shop by players with a hint of speed/strength. It's embarrassing.

Was better in the second as Sissoko going wide made more space in the middle for him to exploit. He's still getting used to the league but I thought he did a couple of really good things in the second half.

I know people want to see more attacking football but I just don't think we've got the defenders. Reckon our best hope is to ditch trying to pass and just grind the shit out of games until January and get a proper centre back in (fat chance) and a centre mid that knows how to shield defence that isn't a midget. First half was shit, too many players looked scared and didn't take responsibility. Played 4-3-3 in the first but we were too congested with Thauvin and Perez dropping inside a lot (and neither are quick to go on the outside), the lack of space totally nullified Wijnaldum and Sissoko, and Cisse was his current shit self. The 4-2-3-1 opened up some of the pitch for Wijnaldum in the second and Sissoko out wide pinned them back and he caused more damage there but it just wasn't enough. We're missing presence up top, badly, and presence at the back. I don't like Tiote but, Christ, he'd do a better job than Colback and Anita at protecting our joke of a captain from shitting himself. The players' attitude in the first worried the shit out of me, hardly any backbone between them. I don't know where you go from here, really.

Defence is a mess when you don't hold their hands too. Don't think forwards have confidence in them.

4-3-3 in the first was shit. 4-2-3-1 in the second slightly less shit. Overall, shit. Some nice footballers, no physicality.

It's better. Annoying about Colback and I hope this is last-chance saloon for Cisse, like.

Shouldn't he be doing that in the first place? Should be a 'more' in there!

Cathro's been working on the attacking play this week, apparently

For home games, I agree that the football must be quicker. Southampton was better for passing with a bit more speed and incision and people would be OK with consistent performances of that ilk (assuming we improve speeding up play in the final third). I think this is a viable strategy for some away games, though, and an attacking midfield 3 of Thauvin, de Jong and Perez would be suited to it with Mitrovic ahead of them.

I don't think he set up on Monday to be defensive, tbf. He set us up quite positively, in terms of shape, and I reckon he wanted us to keep the ball, get the game as wide as possible and work openings patiently. I think some players just didn't turn up (it's quite a new set up for them, tbf, we've only played in that sort of style against Southampton) and he got 1 key position wrong. It's still really early days with how he wants us to play and it looks like they've worked on a few different shapes and tactics, so they've likely not mastered anything and there will be teething problems. Player movement going forward is a big issue but I've heard that's Cathro's domain and I'm sure it'll improve the more it gets worked on. I'm guessing he wants us to generally end up like this: http://www.zonalmarking.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/modern-centre-half.gif If that's the plan, he really should play Ayoze in one of those AM spots, as well as sorting out the obvious Colback/Anita problem.

Hi wasn't really playing as a wide right player on Monday, tbh. He was sort of an inside right with Janmaat pushed up really high and wide.

Anita with one of Sissoko/Wijnaldum would be absolutely fine and infinitely better balanced than Anita-Colback. Anita's not the long term answer, we need to buy a proper CM in January, but he'll have to do for now.

Aye, loads of space in front of our full back, then we pass directly to feet rather than ahead of him Yes, that sort of unconfident passing is a problem for our side. But Colback is the last player who can be accused of that. He is the one who most often tries to play it into someone's stride, rather than at their feet. The player has his faults, but that's not one of them. Him putting the ball a couple of yards in front of a fullback's foot is counteracted by how slowly he plays the pass. As well as always picking the easy option.

Would rather see if i could contact aids tbh. Would be quite difficult, I'd imagine.

I could see the logic in trying to protect him for a few games but this just has to happen. Crying out for someone that can actually take a risk and open up a team from deeper positions, would create more space for other attackers too.

I think he thought the application was right in those first 4 games because he's said he was disappointed with us on the ball at Man U, for example, didn't sound like he thought we played well on the whole. Although, I can't agree with the Swansea one, as we were poor.

Think we'll put in a similar performance to the Southampton game. Narrow 2-1 win.

It's not the formation itself that is making us drop deep, IMO, it's the personnel he's using. 4-3-3 is probably better suited to us, but a 4-2-3-1 should become a 4-3-3 of sorts anyway when we're moving forward with the ball. I don't mind the splitting the CBs thing, let's players get wider and stretch teams but it requires a strong, creative CM that's comfortable taking riskier positions and a smart #10 to link through the middle.

So it makes him better than Keegan also does it going by your comparison? Does it not mean McClaren's better than Pardew? You could sy who has the highest league position in England if you want to put it that way and say Pardew is but I'm not I am just saying they are both equally as s***. But of course you obviously think McC;aren is better than Keegan then. I look at the who picture when I'm comparing. The initial comparison is between McClaren and Pardew, when comparing the two directly, the fact that one has won things makes him better because they're somewhat level in other areas. That's still taking into account the bigger picture. If you asked me to compare Keegan and McClaren then I'd say Keegan because he can do more with an NUFC team than McClaren. So you're using winning more trophies when comparing one manager and then saying that doesn't apply to when you compare with another manager. Yeah right lmao- just do like for like and give an argument as to league positions he has achieved in England which is where Newcastle play. Pardew got to a final of the FA Cup, he finished 5th in the league and is 6th in the league presently but do I say he is a good manager no but he as an overall better league record than McClaren though. You're trying to tell me that one s*** manager is better than another s*** manager and trying to use a League Cup win and a league championship in the Dutch league and yet when I say well if you're using that measure that also applies with someone like Keegan who never won a trophy or a league championship (and not when we were promoted either before you raise that) you try and say no it's not the same - yes it is. I don't think it's hard to grasp, tbh. McClaren's wins as a manager separate himself from Pardew. Keegan's qualities were different so the winning stuff argument doesn't really apply. Anyway, let's just agree to disagree, I just don't think they're in the same bracket, doesn't mean I think either are truly good enough.

So it makes him better than Keegan also does it going by your comparison? Does it not mean McClaren's better than Pardew? You could sy who has the highest league position in England if you want to put it that way and say Pardew is but I'm not I am just saying they are both equally as s***. But of course you obviously think McC;aren is better than Keegan then. I look at the who picture when I'm comparing. The initial comparison is between McClaren and Pardew, when comparing the two directly, the fact that one has won things makes him better because they're somewhat level in other areas. That's still taking into account the bigger picture. If you asked me to compare Keegan and McClaren then I'd say Keegan because he can do more with an NUFC team than McClaren.

So it makes him better than Keegan also does it going by your comparison? Does it not mean McClaren's better than Pardew?